For a time, Green says he considered abandoning the project outright.

“Initially after Sept. 11 happened, I sort of felt like it wouldn’t be possible to finish,” he says. “In the couple weeks after it I thought, ‘I’ve done all this work and it’s for naught.’”

Though he says he tried not to let the aftermath of the terrorist attacks affect the film as he resumed editing, Green admits that he felt the need to change its tone subtly.

“After Sept. 11, there was no room to be light about it,” he says.

But ultimately Green says he felt that the events of September 2001 made it more important to bring out the issues raised by the Weather Underground’s actions, no matter how uncomfortable that sometimes was.

“After a few weeks, when it became clear what the response to Sept. 11 would be, and hearing [President] Bush flattening out these complex issues, I began to feel like it was more important and relevant than ever,” Green says.

“Why is an act of violence in one situation considered a country’s duty and in another situation considered a terrorist act?” Subrin asks. “What could be more salient than that question today? Is there a more important question in 2004?”

This is not a question that The Weather Underground ultimately answers with any clarity, Subrin adds.

“A viewer leaves the film not knowing why [the events it narrates] happened,” Subrin says.

In such a context, though, Green says it was important not to force pat answers.

“Those kind of things, I think, should be looked at in all their complexity,” Green says. “Hopefully it might muddy those waters.”

—Staff writer Simon W. Vozick-Levinson can be reached at vozick@fas.harvard.edu.